davidbrit2 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I'd comment more on this now, but I've got an anthropology assignment that needs doing. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE146 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I dig it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Fake harder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I thought it was level 3 over here? Here's a modified one using balls as prizes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cupcakus Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Those are very good fakes :-) You should have been hired on by that Airworld guy... :-) He may have lasted longer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Room 34 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 How about this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbrit2 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 Hey Nukey, good call with the ball objects as prizes. I was thinking of maybe making them used as fireballs, and leaving the springs as player objects, but I decided against fireballs altogether. It seems like they would be very difficult to avoid if they moved like the ones in the second board. In other words, they would need to be a bit slower, and have the capability to climb ladders. I figure it would be easy to have the springs move like the barrels, and just "slide" along the top floor, and drop straight down at a random location. It's not arcade perfect, but it would work, I suppose. I'm sure that would be a hell of a lot easier than hacking in bouncing routines. The elevators seem like the tough part to me. I'm not sure how much the game engine would have to be reworked to support missile objects that Mario can stand on, and actually move with. Those might have to go, or be done in a slightly "Game & Watch" style. I'm really curious to see if this will motivate any expert ROM hackers to give this all a shot. Hint hint... :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Nah...the player used for the two elevators should be possible (possibly by setting missiles to quad width?). Maybe even use the player used for the Mario character (since no objects ever touch them)...since you already "know" Mario's vertical position, you would know where safe points on the elevator are. The other player object can be divided up into as many fireballs as you want vertically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 ...the only disadvantage to using the same player for elevators/Mario is that the elevator platforms would either flicker or disappear whenever they cross the same scanlines that the Mario character is on. It could work though, I think. (techs?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Cafeman Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Too bad the fireballs can't climb ladders in the 2600 version -- your fake DK elevators screen is unbeatable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeeknPoke Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 http://peeknpoke.emuunlim.com/spaceharrier.jpg Posted before,but Space Harrier anyone? (cut and paste as my site wont allow pic-linking!) Lee (reedited due to picture missing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inky Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I didn't know space harrier looked like a red x... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMila75 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Hey, I love Space Harrier. You've got me wishing for a 2600 version again! Certainly it could be made to look better than that, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Cut and paste, dudes...cut and paste. http://peeknpoke.emuunlim.com/spaceharrier.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Nah...the player used for the two elevators should be possible (possibly by setting missiles to quad width?). Maybe even use the player used for the Mario character (since no objects ever touch them)...since you already "know" Mario's vertical position, you would know where safe points on the elevator are. The other player object can be divided up into as many fireballs as you want vertically. The elevators would be best implemented using playfield graphics. The kernal would need to logically 'OR' the platform image into the scan lines of the playfield where it should appear. Then some code would be needed to mathematically check if the player is on the elevator, but that wouldn't be too tough. You could use the missles and ball as fireballs if you are willing to sacrifice on their appearance a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Your are right! I keep forgetting that the screen pixels are as thin as the scanline. But 1 player could be used for the fireballs only (like in level2). And I figure that the ball could be used in place of "springs". I believe that the flicker factor is the only reason that the fireballs do not climb ladders...by careful positioning of them, that could be overcome in level3 (perhaps confining the rightmost fireball to the top two sections and the center fireball to that area). Two fireballs+two springs(one bouncing, 1 falling) should be sufficient Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 that space harrier pic is hilarious. and wouldn't montezumas revenge make an excellent hack candidate for making a 2600 dk/dk jr with all the boards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 The elevators would be best implemented using playfield graphics. Only if you have most of the 2600's RAM to spare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 I dunno...it seems like you would only need a pointer for each of the platforms (so the processor "knows" which scanline to draw the pixels on). Then update each of them for the next frame (adc/sbc). Correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 The elevators would be best implemented using playfield graphics. Only if you have most of the 2600's RAM to spare. I disaggree. You don't want to store the whole playfield in RAM. You just need to know which scanlines need elevators. For those lines you logically 'OR' the the elevator image with the playfield image stored in ROM, then write it to the playfield registers. That would take 13 bytes of RAM at the most with the line buffer (6 bytes) and the line counter(s) elevator position registers (7 bytes max for 6 elevatores and the counter with the current scanline.) If the elevators images don't cross the screen boundaries between playfield bytes, a single byte line buffer would work in place of 6. Plus if you space the elevators 16, 32, or 64 lines apart you could use some tricks binary math to reduce the number of bytes needed per column of elevators to 1. If (elevator position + scanline ) && (16|32|64) == 0, then draw elevator. So it could be done as pictured with as few as 2 bytes RAM assuming the elevator columns are moving in sync. If the elevators are out of sync it would take more like 3 or 4 bytes of RAM, but it seems doable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidbrit2 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 Hmm, interesting stuff. You know, if the missile objects are unused, they could make good springs. It would be possible to have them expand and contract vertically for a reasonable bouncing effect. Perhaps we should consider implementing the conveyor belt scene. That would probably be much easier. The conveyors would just need a simple player height check, and a fireball could be placed on the center set of platforms. The pies/cement would be on different rows exclusively, so it could all be player graphics. I'll probably mock up another screenshot tonight, since I'm neurotic like that. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 You mean that I got it right?? Anyway, the only reason that the fireballs do not use ladders (that I can see) is an attempt to keep them from being on the same level as another one. By a bit more use of AI, you could probably avoid them meeting each other...probably make a much better level2, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZylonBane Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 So it could be done as pictured with as few as 2 bytes RAM assuming the elevator columns are moving in sync. If the elevators are out of sync it would take more like 3 or 4 bytes of RAM, but it seems doable to me. Sounds like this would consume far more CPU cycles than are available in a single-line, non-mirrored playfield kernel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukey Shay Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 Nonsense, there was a discussion about how a 2600-Robotron homebrew might be possible (though limited) by using playfield gfx for "Grunts"...so I would think that keeping track of just a few platforms would be easier than doing that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godzilla Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 i still think u should just mod montezumas revenge or miner 2049er or something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.